New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-04-19
pApNELL DID NOT WRITE 1T.
ur pENoUNCES THE TlMEs| FAC-SIMILE
AS FORGERY.
ruE LETTER CREATES SENSATION IN ENoLAND
HOME RULERS CALL 1T AN INFAMOUS CON

fuE LETTER CREATES A SENSATION IN ENoLA
HOME RULERS CALL IT AN INFAMOUS 'oN
CocTIoN-TuE FoRGER SUSPECTED.
Ioxnox Anr,l 1S.-The sensation produced py
A. ,,h,;cat,on in The Times of the Parneu let.oi
hos becn 80 great that the specially large edl.o"
;ssuod to meet the expected demand proved in'
.,,,.;e,t The Times exposed special bulletins eau
,nc attention to the letter and sent extra s"Pp''
"a the railway news agents and to the DooA s'"
In an interview to-day Mr. Parneii poin.ou 0u'
,bat although at first sight some of the letters III
The 7Smess fac simile appeared 10 resenoo n,'
cranh. a close comparison shows declded anu
.triLino difference in many important points line
forgery slopes upward, the genuine hand"i.ihe
downward Mr. Parnel always places fuii poin'
ofter the initial as" in his name. whlch the
forgery omits The "r" in 'Parnell" and the y
i'm "Cbas" are different from anything ne mas ever
ur;,tep. The letters ''Ch" in "Chas' are abnormay
long and the as "and "P " are the only letters III
ouy way resembling his genuine autograph. Ine
pcn at the beginning of "a" in the forged Chas
was evidently taken off the paper, whereas III tht
renuine signature it is always written without
break. The forgery, Mr.. Parnell says. is the worK
of q person accustomed to penmanshlp ana wii'ihs
f. flowing hand whereas his own writing is aiway
in n cramped style. Mr.. Parnell further saiu 'n"'
The letter and signature were mpudeht iois 49,
and that he strongly suspected the identity oi VIZ
forger. He was undecided whether TO prosecute
The Times or not. D.,,,;r
Mr. CLANCY (Parnellite). member for Dublin
Comfy. branded the letter as an infamous concoc'
t;on and declared that it bears internal eviaence
NJ forgerv He said aiso that suspicion was already
directed against certain person vs the forger' AN
Irish Member of Parliament departed for Duoln
this morniug TO compare the handwriting III the
Letter. attr bnted to Mr.. Parnell with that OF the
person suspected.
The Parnellites all declared the letter An mia
nous concocton and deliberate invention 10 SIAN
der publicly the leader of the Home Rule parry
They soy that even on the low ground OF eApeui,
epcy Mr. Parnell would be the last man IN tne woro
10 write letter containing such damning admis'
sions They contend therefore. that all thereason III
the case proves the the letter to be forgery Oh te
face of it. pointing for proof to the contents ol .he
document, especially to the writer's warning .ho
person to whom the letter purported 10 DC wri''en
not TO disclose the address. while no ADDRESS is
civen The fact that the signature is the only part
OF the letter in Mr.. Parnel's writing Is by Itself
the Home Rulers argue, proof that the whole
thing is a fraud as according to them, while II
vonld he difficult to obtain enough specimens OF
Mr. Parpclps handwriting to enable forger 10 I'M
,ate it to the extent necessary to palm OIL success
fully whole letter as his it is not at all dihcui'
to obtain his signature.
Mir. Parnell will categorically deny In the Honse
of Commons that he wrote the letter, and the Ell
tor of The Times will be summoned to the bar o.
the House to explain its authorship.
The lobby of the House was crowded In the after
noon with members eagerly discussing the letter
Mr.. Came and Sir Henry James, both Liberal
Unionists, were observed in animated conversation
over it. .
The Globe commenting on the letter says Unit
the horrible accusation that Mr. Parnell wrote the
letter is known, we shall dscredt it."
The Pail Mall Gazette says: Until the au'neh
ticity of the letter shall be absolutely proved ther'
will be no need to discuss It's contents"
The ST James Gazette says: .,
The letter is SO grave a document tnat II WI,
M, do IN regard II as genuine until Mr.. Parncl
shall be heard from concerning it,"